Login
Login

Talk:Alfred Biliotti/GA1

GA review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Alfred Biliotti/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Alfred Biliotti/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

{{atopg

|status=

|result= Pass. MSincccc (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Nominator: {{User|UndercoverClassicist}} 10:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: MSincccc (talk · contribs) 14:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
  2. :a (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|pass}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|pass}}
  3. ::
  4. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
  5. :a (reference section): {{GAList/check|pass}} b (inline citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|pass}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|neu}} d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|pass}}
  6. ::
  7. It is broad in its coverage.
  8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|pass}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|pass}}
  9. ::
  10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|pass}}
  12. ::
  13. It is stable.
  14. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|pass}}
  15. ::
  16. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
  17. :a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): {{GAList/check|pass}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|pass}}
  18. ::
  19. Overall:
  20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|neu}}
  21. ::

== Images==

  • File:Alfred Biliotti ILN 1897.jpg, File:Sir Charles Thomas Newton - Imagines philologorum.jpg, and File:Robert-Gascoyne-Cecil-3rd-Marquess-of-Salisbury (cropped).jpg- Can the persons depicted in these images be named rather than being described generally, as per WP:ALT? MSincccc (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • :WP:ALT has {{green|The alt text is intended to be read out by screen readers just before the caption, so avoid having the same details in both.}} The names are given in the captions. The role of alt text is to describe the visual information available to a sighted user but not one using a screen reader. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • ::I had previously been told by another user on more than one occasion with regard to another article-{{green|per WP:ALT: it isn't a picture of just any boy, see 'Importance of context': 'Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text for this image of Elizabeth II should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat"'}} MSincccc (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • :::Right -- those using screen readers need to know that it is Elizabeth II -- and they get that information, in this article. from the captions, which the screen reader reads out for them. They don't need to hear it twice, especially as brevity in alt text is particularly important. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • File:Alfred_Biliotti_ILN_1897.jpg is listed as anonymous.
  • File:Una_via_di_Canea_(xilografia).jpg-Its author is listed as unknown. MSincccc (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • :Those are both correct. They are also old enough to be in the public domain as anonymous works/works for hire. What's the concern here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • ::I had approached the user Nikkimaria to check if I had overlooked anything regarding the images. The following points were raised: {{green|Both images (File:Alfred_Biliotti_ILN_1897.jpg and File:Una_via_di_Canea_(xilografia).jpg) use tags based on the author's date of death, but if the author is unknown, how can we determine when they died? Regarding File:Robert-Gascoyne-Cecil-3rd-Marquess-of-Salisbury_(cropped).jpg, the quoted text outlines the requirement for the tag used—where is that requirement actually met?}} MSincccc (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • :::Ah, I see what you mean on the two anonymous works -- I've changed to the correct tag.
  • :::On Salisbury -- photograph was clearly taken before 1955 (1880s) by an anonymous photographer, per the National Portrait Gallery page. The overwhelming balance of probability is for a publication at some point before 1955, as it's the sort of photograph (a cabinet card) that was often made for mass production and sale, and plenty of other Elliott and Fry photographs of Salisbury can be found on Google Books in magazines circa 1900. However, I can't specifically find this one in them (they were probably using more up-to-date likenesses), so I've swapped him for this Mycenaean kylix from Ialysos. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

; Comment

  • [http://smea.isma.cnr.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Barchard_The-fearless-and-self-reliant-servant.-The-life-and-career-of-Sir-Alfred-Biliotti.pdf]
  • [https://ataturkilkeleri.deu.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/02_elif_yeneroglu_kutbay.pdf]- The text shows a similarity of over 40% when compared to the above two sources. MSincccc (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • :It's important to check what Earwig flags as similar. Barchard is a major source, so we might expect some similarity, but most of the hits of overlap come because his title is printed on every page of the PDF -- and, of course, found in our bibliography. The other hits are almost all quotations or tiny phrases like "Ottoman Empire", "on behalf of the British Museum" or "now known as the Hieraptyna Hadrian", often used in different contexts to those in the original (for example, it flags "towards the end of that decade" as similar to "towards the end of that year", but we're talking about completely different parts of the story when each of us uses that phrase). Exactly the same is true with the Kutbay source, except there are even fewer real overlaps, outside the title. You can see this by looking at the distribution of red highlight on Earwig: large, contiguous chunks usually indicate a problem; isolated short bursts are usually false positives. (Incidentally, Earwig is not a particularly good tool for spotting real examples of plagiarism: there you need to closely read source and article and look out for passages that have been cribbed but insufficiently adapted). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

==Prose==

; Lead

; Early life

  • "Charles Bilioti" is mentioned multiple times in the first paragraph of this section. Could we simply write "Charles" after the initial introduction?
  • : This was a bit repetitious: I've reworked a little. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

; Honours and personal life

  • You could link to the article on The Times in this section.
  • As is common style in many articles, publication names aren't linked in bibliographic entries in this article. The article is not, as far as I can tell, available online. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all for now. MSincccc (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

; Assessment

  • You could link to the article antiquarian in this section. It is not a commonly known term.
  • : We could -- in principle, not a bad idea, though occupations generally aren't linked. In this particular case, it would create a WP:SEAOFBLUE, and the term isn't important to understand the sentence (it works fine as {{green|The English lawyer and blah-blah R. A. H. Bickford-Smith visited Crete in 1896}}), so I don't think the costs are worth the benefits, though they might be in other circumstances. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I will review the Diplomatic career and Archaeological work sections later, when I have the proper time. The article is well written otherwise. MSincccc (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

; Diplomatic career

  • Punch magazine has been linked twice in close proximity in this section; it constitutes duplicate linking.
  • :: The second is in a caption, which is usually treated separately (readers will often skim the images when not necessarily reading the text in detail). MOS:DUPLINK allows duplicate linking when it serves a purpose. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • {{green|The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization...}} Could "IMRO" be mentioned in this sentence within round brackets?

:* Yes, that's good practice: done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all from this section. Minor suggestions above. MSincccc (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

; Diplomatic career

  • {{green|Newton's main task was to find archaeological finds and acquire them for British museum collections, and to identify local agents to supervise exploratory excavations.}} Shouldn't it be "British Museum" here?
  • :: No: it means "museum collections [plural] in Britain", not specifically the collections of the British Museum [singular] in London. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

; Archaeological career

  • "Kameiros" could be linked to the article Camirus at least once in the body.
  • Done (on first mention in body, and in caption). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • The subsection titled "Bargyla" should be actually Bargylia.
  • : Very well spotted: fixed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have no further suggestions for the prose. The text is fine as it is and reads clearly.

: P.S. Out of curiosity, I’d like to know how you came across Biliotti. Was this article suggested to you? I’ve yet to come across his name in middle school history. MSincccc (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Thank you -- Biliotti is not very well known, and very much a footnote to history. Putting the article together was an interesting exercise in joining the dots between the archaeologist -- often named, with little context, in museum labels -- and the diplomatic official. Most people to date who have studied Biliotti have been exclusively interested in one or the other, so there isn't really a full biography (apart from this one) that fully brings the two sides together. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

==Source-to-text spot check=

  • 1-{{done}}
  • 3-{{done}}
  • 6-{{done}}
  • 12-{{done}}
  • 21-{{done}}
  • 71-{{done}}

That's all for the spot check. MSincccc (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)